my favourite bible quotes part 2 – ten generations of bastards

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 23:2)

Given that many Christians are still in spasm about the changes happening to the institution of marriage across the world, I thought it would be nice to examine the far-reaching consequences of having sex incorrectly.

If you are a benevolent deity, you’ll understand how repulsed you would feel if a baby was born to parents who hadn’t first undergone a marriage ceremony. You’d also see the logic in encouraging your faithful followers to discriminate against subsequent generations of besmirched little bastard babies for at least a couple hundred years.

Christians today continue to follow this Biblical teaching and spurn illegitimate offspring, and the offspring of that offspring, and the offspring of that offspring, for the mandated ten generations. I know this to be the case because they all faithfully follow the words of their man god, the character Jesus Christ, who made the following unequivocal statement:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18)

“Such a shame that kids are born to divorced and remarried parents.” Now that’s an interesting thought. Perhaps this was such a ridiculous idea that the Bible writers didn’t even bother to ask the god God how disgusted he would be by such children. Putting myself in the shoes of a benevolent deity who doesn’t want illegitimate children near him … offspring from divorce and remarriage – yuck!, for 20 generations I expect.

Or even worse, what if it just happened from a clerical mistake? Some scribe puts down an “I” for one generation. Another scribe spills some ink so it looks like a “X.” Congratulations, God now punishes ten generations of kids because one married couple couldn’t have children the right way.

Oh, and I don’t think anyone asked their deity about it because nobody thought it was noteworthy that their deity hates illegitimate children for something that they couldn’t have helped if they wanted to.

A lot of scholars argue the Matthews Gospel envisaged a faith that was not separate to Judaism but continued to obey the Jewish law. Indeed we know that many of the early Christians continued to do so. The Edomites were one such Christian group. Eventually these groups were persecuted out of existence by the winner in the fight of rival ideas, that being Pauline Christianity.

We see the history written by the winners. But early Christianity is likely to have been a lot more Jewish than most imagine.

Theologians argue that the OT laws need to be interpreted through the prism of the completed work of Christ. Thus they argue moral laws still stand, but ceremonial law and laws relating to the theocracy of Israel no longer apply. But that is not what Jesus literally said.

People brought up in Christianity have got so used to interpreting it in a certain way, they genuinely struggle to understand these issues.

Why doesn’t god just send a lightning bolt to fry all those ugly frickin’ bastard babies? I mean he’s omnipotent and all…why wait for the bastards to have more bastards? A little fire and electricity would do the job nicely. Where’s Inspiredbythedivine when you need him?

I agree with the observation below that we need a sort of CS Whisperer, I find his statements very hard to follow. Perhaps I am just not enlightened enough. Though perhaps he is too spiritual for us.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus exasperates many people by not answering their questions and changing the subject and using figures of speech that the person he was talking to could not understand. Perhaps CS is emulating Jesus?

‘Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech.’ (John 16:29)

Peter, please be careful about mentioning ColorStorm. He sees right through you and knows it’s because the character Jesus is shining a light in this dark corner. The only reason people like you and Arch are ‘obsessed’ with CS is because you know that he’s right. (Or so he says.)

“why wait for the bastards to have more bastards?” That’s a lovely point. Perhaps after 10 generations the ‘yuck’ gets diluted enough that he can look at them again. Remember, to understand the god God, you’ve got to think like a benevolent being.

Excellent question. Despite being a catholic for decades, I haven’t the faintest idea. I’ve heard that phrase 1000X and never stopped to really think about the implications…which is what you have to do with all religious teachings. I’m sure apologists would have an answer, which they have for everything on earth. Maybe James could tell you? Or Walley? Or hey…CS!

CS is nothing compared to High Arka. Have you met him? Violetwisp is the High Arka whisperer, because she’s the only one who can make sense of him and find the words to answer his comments (the rest of us have our heads explode).

In the medieval times, it was quite common in Europe, for the sons of priests, all born out of wedlock, as priests could not marry, to be allowed to study for priesthood. But they were not called the bastards of priests, rather they were called the “gifted youths” as if they were somehow singled out of the grand population by their talents, and not by nepotism.

At the same time high lords and knights could have sons who were publicly acknowledged as bastards, and these could carry their fathers coat of arms, were taught the military skills just like the legitimate sons and their dads, bought them their (very expensive) tools of the trade, namely a warhorse, armour and weapons. The only difference was, that there was this “thin red line” across their coat of arms and shield. So, that everybody knew them as bastards. And they were set last in line to inherit their fathers. In the end, if the legitimate sons died in combat (as sometimes did happen), the bastard could eventually inherit the father. It was a completely different thing all together to be born bastard son of a peasant than of nobility.

All this goes to show, is that the social norm, values, nor concepts of justice, fairness, or the “traditional” marriage, are not in any way dependant on the religious faith of the society, nor of the individual. Rather they are products of a number of varying things in the society starting from the economics, level of education, level of scientific research, traditions, and the religions often only work as excuses for what people think how the society should be arranged, though religious thoughts can greatly twist and limit our scope on what really, most likely is objective about the issue. And no gods appear ever to tell us different. There are just these ancient books, that are indistinguishable from some dudes pondering how the society should be arranged and trying to add on gods or other divine forces to give authority to their thoughts.

Him too. Under the sacred Papal banner they invaded. And his brother bishop Odo went to battle beside him armour clad, leading his own troops, like was in the custom of bishops for most of Christendoms history. After all, they were necessarily born (wether bastard or not) in the ranks of the cavalry elite nobility, wich defined the “traditional values” of Christianity for over a thousand years. It seems though, that shopkeepers and other sort of capitalists have decided to define the “traditional values” of Christianity today, since they have usurped the position of political elite in the world from them cavalry men.

Be fair to William, he did build some big churches to thank the Pope Alexander the II for his endorsement of the invasion!

However relations did sour with the papacy a bit later:

Late in William’s reign, Pope Gregory VII demanded that William swear fealty to him (that is, accept the pope as his feudal lord). Apparently Gregory believed that since William had sought a pope’s permission to invade England, he owed his kingdom to the pope. William indignantly rejected the idea. The pope and the king also clashed because the king appointed bishops whom he expected to be loyal to him, whereas the pope considered that bishops owed their first loyalty to Rome.

The study of Christian history was a significant factor in me losing my faith. I could not see a divine loving being in the history of the Church, instead I saw the worst of humanity.

“All this goes to show, is that the social norm, values, nor concepts of justice, fairness, or the “traditional” marriage”
You must be mistaken Raut, because we all know traditional Christian marriage has been ruling the world for the last 6000 years since we were created. Only now, in the end times, is change occurring. Honestly, you people need to read some books. 😉

Speaking of moderation, VW, the only other blog that moderates my comments is I/B’s. Today, you posted this on her site:

I was wondering if you have a post that explicitly addresses how you believe a Christian who experiences same sex attractions should live their lives in terms of romance. I’d be interested to know if you think they should attempt a heterosexual marriage or just remain celibate.

Which I followed with this:

While you’re taking requests, I/B, possibly you could include a section in which you envision your own sexual orientation, and then describe what it would take for you to voluntarily change that orientation to its opposite. After all, so many of your associates seem to believe there’s a choice involved.

Personally, I’m heterosexual, but I honestly can’t imagine what kind of mental gyrations I would have to perform to reach the point where I preferred men to women. Yet if, as some believe, there’s an “OFF” switch somewhere that gives us voluntary control, possibly you could instruct us as to how to find and operate it.

I’m posting it here just in case it never otherwise sees the light of day.